The reason for the panic is obvious. These large insurance companies have been ripping off the healthcare system for decades. They have had their fortunes improved with Obamacare and its regulations. They are afraid they are going to lose their stronghold.

The three innovations, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Jamie Diamond are disruptors that might destroy UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana’s kingdom.

Mitch McConnell has supposedly taken Repeal of Obamacare off the agenda for 2018.

I believe Mitch McConnell doesn’t know what to do about Obamacare. He is hoping that it fails on its own. He has passed the budget that will force the government to cover the tremendous financial short falls the defectives in the structure of Obamacare is going to precipitate.

Only then will the public hear about Obamacare’s effect on America’s budget deficit.

The American taxpayer will be force to continue to fund this failed program.

Obamacare has failed because of its structure. It encourages over use of the healthcare system by sick people. It does not encourage consumers to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

The Democrats and the Republican establishment have failed the American consumer again.

If they bother to understand the elements of medical care and the reasons for the healthcare systems dysfunction they have a chance for success.

If they follow the previous attempts to repair the healthcare system by the government, healthcare insurance industry and hospital systems they will fail miserably just as these other institutions have failed.

“The industry certainly offers plenty of opportunities for reinvention, of course. Healthcare in the United States is expensive, and its quality varies wildly.” says Christopher Rowe, managing director at Korn Ferry.

Jeff Bezos has the best shot at reducing drug price significantly. The government cannot negotiate prices. The private carriers through drug benefit plans do a little better.

The military and the VA system do 30 to 75% better than Medicare Part D and the private sector.

Jeff Bezos knows how to market via the Internet. With the large cadre of consumer employees of Jeff Bezos Warren Buffet and Jamie Diamond, Mr. Bezos can probably negotiate the drug prices down by at least 50%. I’ll bet he can negotiate drug prices almost as low as the VA system and also provide the pharmaceutical companies an increase in reimbursement for their drugs.

Mr. Bezos usually eliminates most of the middlemen. He will be able to offer the medication at a 40 or 50% lower price than Medicare Part D and the private benefit managers and still make a sizable profit while providing a better quality of service.

He knows the customer is the consumer.

When it comes to the delivery of medical care and the use of technology in the delivery of medical care, I am not sure Bezos, Buffet and Diamond know who the real customers are.

I am not sure they know how to get around the stronghold the healthcare insurance industry, the federal government and the hospital systems have over the control of healthcare.

Many other corporations have tried to break the stronghold and have failed.

I will try to tell Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Jamie Diamond what they have to do in my next blog.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

A consumer driven healthcare system is the solution to the dysfunctional and unaffordable healthcare system that americans are presently experiencing.

President Trump wants to create the conditions for consumers to take responsibility for their medical care and their healthcare dollars.

The negative noise in the mainstream media should be ignored.

The Obamacare health insurance exchanges have failed. The Democrats and establishment Republicans should realize that the health insurance exchange plan was a defective system that it can not be repaired with patches and more money.

President Trump has signed an executive order to permit private associations to sell insurance. There are many associations that a person could belong too. Consumers could shop for the right association at the right price.

Democrats are behaving as if associations are a foreign enemy.

UnitedHealth has contracted with AARP (an association) to sell Medicare supplemental insurance. UnitedHealth sells this insurance across state lines.

There are many supplemental plans that consumers can choose from in these associations. These plans are sold across state lines and are competitive.

The government has to change the tax law to treat individual healthcare insurance plans bought through the associations to be paid for with pre-tax dollars just as the employer sponsored group plans do.

However, associations selling healthcare insurance are only the first step in empowering consumers.

A well-known retired physician (DEF M.D.) sent me his view on what consumers need to be aware of to survive any healthcare system. He calls it

“My Three Rules For Survival”

Remember my three rules for survival:

1)Stay the hell away from doctors.

They always either want to do something or prescribe something, and all too frequently do both.

A large part of this physician reflex is their need to practive defensive medicine. Physicians are afraid they might miss something and get sued.

Major tort reform is necessary in most states. Defensive medicine accounts for $250 billion to $700 billion dollars in unnecessary expenses each year.

I have outlined the steps necessary to remedy the malpractice (tort) crisis and its resulting overuse of testing and medication.

If anyone in President Trump’s administration wants to review the issue in full click on this link.

The cost to all of us (including them) of all this denial of personal responsibility is huge! We need to find ways to get people to focus on taking care of themselves, or to create cost incentives that will encourage them to do so.

While you are in this reading mood you should check out my pleas for the importance of patient responsibility.

We simply cannot continue on the path we are on. I don't recall ever seeing a patient on a "scooter", and many in wheelchairs that are obese, and only getting fatter and fatter over time.

2) Take as little medicine as you can.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are continuing to drive up the cost of their products and are making enormous profits as a result. Data is available re: the necessity of people getting medicines that they don't really need, especially if taken long term on an ongoing basis.

To that, one can add the cost of unnecessary procedures that often leave patients worse off than they were before. Direct to the public advertising of prescription medications creates demand that is often unaccompanied by benefit.

More and more current information regarding side effects and late effects of medications need to be provided, and not just put into the "fine print" on the package stuffers.

3) Stay out of hospitals.

They are dangerous places, with a high prevalence of patient injuries and deaths due to various sorts of medical errors that occur all too frequently, despite a host of quality improvement projects that are well-intended, but would be better in terms of effectiveness if they were made public on a regular basis.

Scott Atlas makes good arguments for encouraging patients to "price shop" for services they must have. To that information should be appended information about outcomes of what is proposed, which could, over time, become both hospital-specific and physician-specific.

I have expanded on Scott Atlas’ Wall Street Journal article in my last blog.

The bill continues to allow the government and the healthcare insurance companies to drive the cost and the healthcare system.

The Republican bill does not provide incentives for consumers to use their healthcare dollars wisely.

It does not include malpractice reform.

If President Trump buys the nonsense Republicans are calling a repeal and replacement for Obamacare, then the RINO’s have pulled the wool over his eyes.

It would be a gigantic mistake to push this bill in its present form. You would be producing political capital for the politically bankrupt Democrats.

This bill is a typical bait and switch. Rand Paul is correct. It is Obamacare lite.

It does not put consumers in charge. It keeps the healthcare insurance industry in full control of medicine, healthcare and the government.

Rather than discontinuing an entitlement it creates another one.

Refundable tax credit is another term for redistribution of wealth. You give money to everyone. You then take it back from some and let the others have it.

It does not repeal most of the Obamacare regulations.

It extends many of the programs past 2019.

President Trump, it does not help drain the swamp as you promised. It makes the swamp worse.

The insurance companies are not returned to a free market. It is a clever way to support the insurance companies by switching from a mandate and penalty to a tax credit (giving the money away to everyone).

This is another entitlement to further enrich the healthcare insurance industry.

Americans elected these Republican politicians to drain the swamp. This bill is no different than Obamacare.

“Refundable” tax credits – for those who don’t owe taxes – are still a subsidy. It is still redistribution of wealth, with winners (those who get the subsidy) and losers (those who pay for it). And the chief winner is the “health plan.” It gets money; the supposed beneficiary may get nothing, or only rationed care from a narrow network.

Sixty-three percent of men and 55% of women had a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater.

A graded increase in the prevalence ratio (PR) was observed with increasing severity of overweight and obesity for all of the health outcomes except for coronary heart disease in men and high blood cholesterol level in both men and women.

With normal-weight individuals as the reference, for individuals with BMIs of at least 40 kg/m2 and who were younger than 55 years, PRs were highest for type 2 diabetes for men (PR, 18.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-46.8)

These complications include microvascular and macrovascular disorders. The macrovascular complications, which are well recognized in patients with longstanding diabetes or hypertension, include coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease.

Although microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy) are conventionally linked to hyperglycemia, studies have shown that hypertension constitutes an important risk factor, especially for nephropathy.

Eighty percent of the treatment costs for diabetes and hypertension to the healthcare system is the result of the treatment of the complications of hypertension and diabetes.

In order for a healthcare system to be sustainable diabetes and hypertension must be cured. It is essential that each must be recognized early and treated aggressively.

Equally important is the morbidity resulting from the complications of diabetes and hypertension, two diseases that result from obesity.

Complications from the onset of both hypertension and diabetes take about eight years to develop. This is the reason to diagnose and discover Pre-Diabetes at the onset.

The shared lifestyle factors in the etiology of hypertension and diabetes provide ample opportunity for non-pharmacological intervention.

Thus, the initial approach to the management of bothdiabetes and hypertension must emphasize weight control, physical activity, and dietary modification.

Lifestyle intervention is remarkably effective in the primary prevention of diabetes and hypertension. These principles also are pertinent to the prevention of downstream macrovascular complications of the two disorders.

This is the where my story of the importance of personal responsibility comes in.

A restaurateur, in his early 50’s, who runs a large restaurant in Dallas, that I frequent, was slowly gaining weight. At 269 lbs. he had difficulty standing on his feet all day long. He was being treated for hypertension and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol).

His physician told him he must lose weight. He informed him of his risk factors for the complications of these diseases.

This was all he needed hear. The thought of having to quit the job he loved and the possibility of dying from the complications of his diseases was enough to make him decide to loss the weight.

He was told he would be fine if he lost the weight.

He has lost 70 lbs.so far without assistence. He has decided to be personally responsible for his weight loss.

He now gets up at 5 am each morning and exercises for one hour each day before work.

He has stopped eating his wonderful pasta dishes. He eats nothing that is white.

Every time I meet a friend at the restaurant, the restaurateur sits down at our table for a chat. We usually talk about how great he is doing in the weight loss department.

I had initiated an obesity program at Endocrine Associates of Dallas P.A. in the mid 1980s. A California clinical endocrinologist, with whom I did my endocrine fellowship with, had a very successful obesity program. He convinced me to start one at EAD.

Patients on large doses of insulin were totally off insulin after two weeks. It was successful until the patients graduated from the program.

Unfortunately the recidivism rate (regaining weight) was around 80%. This rate was not dissimilar to the national overage at the time.

EAD stopped the program.

In my view there were not enough patients who turned the corner and stuck to the program.

I believe the restaurateur has turned the corner. This fellow has turned the personal responsibility corner to control his food intake and exercise output. I do not believe he will regain his weight.

He has exhibited personal responsibility for his health and well-being.

If only physicians could solve the obesity problem so easily, the cost of healthcare would plummet to sustainable levels.

The development of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus would also plummet and the cost of the treatment of its complications would vanish.

Social change is necessary in restaurants and fast food chains.

People have to be taught to eat wisely in restaurants and at home.

People have to be provided with education about the perils of obesity.

People have to understand the natural history of obesity.

People have to be motivated to not only maintain their health. They have to be given financial incentives to control their health.

This can only be achieved with a consumer driven healthcare system in which people are provided with incentives to control their healthcare dollars.

I thought he cared about Americans and cared about repairing the healthcare system. I wrote six letters to him giving him suggestions on how to repair the healthcare system.

Then, I realized he was not interested in the improved delivery of healthcare to all Americans. He was interested in the central government controlling the healthcare system in order to control the people and limit their freedoms.

Obamacare was the answer to his goal. Most physicians did not agree with his plan. Many felt powerless to object. Many felt they should go along to get along.

Many in the healthcare industry figured that greater government involvement in healthcare financing would lead to its economic benefit.

Everyone has been deceived. Everyone is starting to believe that government managed healthcare leading to a better healthcare for all and a better healthcare system is a myth.

In my letters I tried to explain this to President-elect Obama. My explanation fell on deaf ears.

The Republicans in the House got many things right in its legislation to replace Obamacare. However they have left out the three most important elements necessary to Repair the Healthcare System.

The first is the revival of the physician/patients relationship.

Consumers must control their health and their healthcare dollars. America must have a consumer driven healthcare system.

Consumers can be taught to drive the healthcare system though public service education.

Consumers must be taught through public service education to change their eating and exercising habits. The emphasis must be on the health dangers of obesity and its development.

Secondly, consumers must be given financial incentives as outlined by my Ideal Medical Savings Accounts to control their own health and have access to available care available in necessary.

Third, there must be significant tort reform included in the replacement of Obamacare.

If the Republicans simply send you the bill they have passed in the house and you sign it you will have an impending disaster as large as Obamacare.

If you include my suggestions in your bill, you would excite consumers and physicians. All the people who have been hurt by the failures of Obamacare will cheer you.

The repeal of Obamacare is vital. It should only be replaced with a consumer driven healthcare system that I have outlined. It will be economically sustainable. It would win over all conservatives and independents. It would even make progressives rethink their ideology.

The following is Part 3 of my review of your healthcare reform platform. You have a viable alternative to Obamacare. Your alternative needs some vital additions.

In my last blog I omitted the link proving that only 1 million people signed up for Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

I apologize for the oversight. Today enrollment is only 2.3 million. I also noticed that the enrollment date was extended to January 30 from December 31 without fanfare. The site I omitted that follows daily enrollment is acasignups.net.

Obamacare is still a long way from the 20 million claimed and the actual 10 million enrolled for 12 months.

The Obama “experts” still believe that Obamacare is viable. They refuse to believe it has been a healthcare disaster as well as a disaster for America’s economy.

Your next proposal is;

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate.

The contribution to the MSA should be flexible to provide an adequate amount of money to be put into the savings accounts to provide financial incentivizes to consumers to maintain their health.

Obesity is a huge problem to health maintenance of health. Obesity can be effectively cured behavioral change of consumers.

The incidence of chronic diseases in obese people is five times that of normal weight people. Financial incentives must be provided. The is also the area that social engineering might be helpful.

Obese children are becoming diabetic and hypertensive at a young age. This must be prevented because of the potential explosive cost effect of complications of both diabetes and hypertension on individuals. The overall costs to patients, Medicaid and society will be devastating.

Medicaid must be converted to a system where the recipients are responsible for their health with financial incentives. Only then Medicaid patients will not be treated as a commodity. Service will improve. .

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals.

Price transparency is an essential provision for individuals, businesses and groups in order to produce smart consumers of healthcare.

It is also necessary to require insurance companies to provide verifiable price transparency for their administrative costs and their direct patient care costs.

Consumers must be empowered to be responsible and shop for the best healthcare service value. They must look for the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical related procedure.

The only way to decrease the cost of healthcare services is to produce smart and motivated consumers of healthcare.

Federal and state governments should help their citizens choose safe, reliable and cheaper products for the treatment of their diseases.

This would help with compliance and adherence to recommended treatment and also decrease the cost of care.

It would provide consumers with information to take responsibility for their own health and healthcare dollars.

Encourage Congress to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America.

One example is allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas. It will stimulate competition for consumer dollars in the U.S. and lower the cost of brand and generic drugs sold here. Drug prices are artificially high in the U.S.

This is only one example of many ways to decrease the cost of drugs in this country.

You have made many proposals to make a lot of important changes to the healthcare system.

Some are good proposals. Some are not very well thought out by your advisors.

However, you are missing the other important elements in reforming the healthcare system. Those elements are the elements of the use of consumer power, consumer initiatives, and consumer incentives.

By utilizing these elements you will begin to “Drain the Healthcare Swamp.”

Your healthcare changes must include a consumer driven system with an ideal medical saving account. Otherwise, the healthcare system will remain an unmanageable, expensive and abused mess.

You have admitted these proposals are simply a start. You can easily fall into the trap of listening to academicians who have never practiced medicine in a private setting. You need people who understand patients’ needs.

Obamacare has been a disaster that is unsustainable. It is increasing the cost of care week by week, while rationing care and decreasing access to care.

You must repeal and replace Obamacare. No one wants it. You have outlined a viable proposal even if the progressives don’t like it.

It is a good start.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

This is a wild fantasy. The real goal is to completely control the healthcare system.

Donald Trump’s web site starts by declaring that Obamacare must be repealed.

“Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—(Obamacare.”

The average Americans are starting to understand Obamacare economic burden on the economy in general and them individually

“ The Affordable Care Act, (Obamacare), legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history must be repealed.”

President Obama and majorities in the House and Senate tightly controlled the debate in congress and the traditional media.

Nancy Pelosi said it all when she said “you will not know what is in Obamacare until it has passed.”

“Obamacare has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs.”

The runaway costs for the government and individuals were the result of:

“Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country.”

This has resulted from the 10 hidden taxes, along the inhibiting effect on the economy and the uncertainty of the potential mandates, that resulted in and from job losses.

“As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.”

Donald Trump concludes that Obamacare cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

“But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.”

Donald Trump recognizes that simply repealing Obamacare will not fix the healthcare system.

He also recognizes that he must work with Congress to have a series of reforms ready for implementation.

“We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country.”

It is refreshing to know that a potential president is willing to work with congress rather than issue executive orders and see if he can get away with them.

“By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.

Any reform effort must begin with Congress.”

Donald Trump says;

Several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.

This is the correct process according to the constitution.

It is imperative that Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate in order for Donald Trump to lead legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The following are the suggestions a Trump administration will offer the congress according to his website.

Completely repeal Obamacare.

Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate (tax according to the Supreme Court). No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines.

Donald Trump assumes eliminating state line restrictions will allow full competition in the healthcare insurance market place. He assumes insurance premium costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up. The healthcare insurance companies will try to keep the insurance premiums equally high in all states.

It can only work if consumers can buy insurance they believe they need. Costs of unnecessary insurance should not be piled into one insurance plan fits all. i.e. A post menopausal woman does not need to pay a birth control premium.

4. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system.

Individuals should be allowed to take the same tax deductions as group insurance plans are allowed.

5.We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

This is where Donald Trump’s proposal weakens. The Medicaid program must be modified. Medicaid recipients should be incorporated into my ideal Medical Saving Account program. The government should act as the funding agent for the eligible poor.

This will put the poor on the same payment footing as everyone else.

The Medicaid eligible poor should be given financial incentives to take charge of their health and healthcare dollars.

Our healthcare system must be moved from a system that fixes you when you are sick or broken into a system that rewards people financially for remaining healthy and controlling their healthcare spending.

It is much cheaper to avoid the cost of emergency care than it is to get sick and have to go to the emergency room.

6. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) should be changed to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to provide better financial incentives for people who choose this form of insurance. The Medical Savings Accounts can easily be customized so that consumers can choose the level of insurance they desire.

The contribution to the MSA can be flexible to provide adequate amounts of money to be put into the savings accounts to incentivize consumers to remain healthy.

Obesity is a huge program that must be consumer driven. Obesity must be cure by the patient and his family, not surgery.

Obese children are becoming diabetic and also hypertensive at a young age. This must be stopped because of the potential explosive effect of complications of both diabetes and hypertension on individual and overall costs of medical care.

Price transparency is an essential provision for individuals, businesses and groups. It provides leverage for consumers to be responsible for their healthcare dollars. It is also necessary to require insurance companies to provide verifiable price transparency for their administrative costs and their direct patient care costs

Consumers must be empowered to be responsible and shop for the most value and best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical related procedure.

This is the way to decrease the cost of healthcare services and medical care services.

Social networking should be used as the backbone for the establishment of consumer empowerment.

The success of Angie’s list, Trip Advisor and Open Table are a result of social networking. Local communities have their individual social networks that empower people in their neighborhood to know which vendors provide the best value in their community.

This simple step can be used to decrease the cost of healthcare and medical care.

This could be a place where government can lead the way in establishing this accurate educational resources.

8. Block-grant Medicaid to the states.

These block grants can be used by the states to fund MSAs without a threat of increasing state budget deficits or giving states rights to the control of the federal government.

Block grants for social networking should be used to provide incentives to help individuals to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse of some of its local providers. It would eliminate expensive big data collections that many times are inaccurate in decision making by central federal control.

Federal and state governments should help its citizen choose safe, reliable and cheaper products for the treatment of their diseases.

It would help with compliance and adherence to recommended treatment and decrease the cost of care.

It would promote consumers taking responsibility for their own health and healthcare dollars.

10. Congressss will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America.

One example is allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas. It will provide more options to consumers. This is only one example of many that ways to decrease the cost of drugs in this country.

Donald Trump is proposing a lot of important changes.

However, he is missing the important element of consumer power, consumer initiative, and consumer incentives.

His healthcare changes must include a consumer driven system with an ideal medical saving account otherwise the healthcare system will remain an unmanageable, expensive and abused mess.

Donald Trump admits this is simply a start. His start is much more powerful than Hillary Clinton’s proposal to continue and build on Obamacare.

Obamacare has been a disaster that is unsustainable. It is weekly increasing the cost of care while rationing care and decreasing access to care.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

A few weeks ago I had a terrific exchange with Steve Brachet M.D. who forwarded my blog to Steve Gregg.

"Stan,

I forwarded your recent blog featuring the five essential steps for HC reform to StephenGregg of Portland Oregon.

SteveGregg is a former senior hospital executive, turned CEO of a managed care plan (successful in WA and OR), developer of alternative healthcare products, developer of patient care informatics, and thought leader in past 10 years on dimensions and confounding variables of health care in all its complexities.

He asked me to send the attached (very brief) piece recently published in the Oregon main media.

I don’t know if he expects a comment or two – but if you care to comment feel free to respond to SteveGregg directly.

I take it that you are continuing to do your best to ‘right this HC ship’ that seems unlikely to improve on its own – nor with the help of the current Congress.

SteveBarchet M.D."

I was fascinated with the article Steve Gregg wrote. I agree with many of the points he makes. I am publishing his article with Steve Gregg’s permission. I wrote back and said;

Dear Steve

I welcome your article.

My blog explains the elements needed to Repair the Healthcare System from a physician’s point of view.

As a result of the Internet and improved software, consumers have become king and are driving the consumer consumption market. Amazon and ebay have led the way. Opaque purchasing models have been replaced by price transparent purchasing.

Wal-Mart has been forced to close stores because of online purchasing to remain competitive.

There is no reason that shopping for healthcare services cannot transform the healthcare industry with all its opacity.

Consumers must be put in a position to drive the healthcare system and be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

Our 2020 business model can transform the dysfunctional healthcare system that can align all the stakeholders' vested interests by empowering consumers and letting them drive the system.

The result will be a decrease in cost. It will eliminate the entitlement mentality of healthcare consumers and create a competitive mentality for all stakeholders as it has done in the examples above.

All Obamacare is doing is trying to put a patch on a healthcare system whose demise has been accelerated since passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Your articles describe many essential premises that must be reexamined.

However, consumers must be involved and be the responsible party in the healthcare system. They have to be given financial incentive to be involved and responsible.

Thank you for letting me reprint your article.

Health Reform…What Next?

Steve Gregg

With the expensive collapse of Oregon’s Health Exchange, a New Year, and approaching changes at the Federal level, it is time to reconsider the formative assumptions driving health care reform.

Ten Game Changing Assumptions Shaping Health Reform:

The ideologies of the left and right will not sustain a reform solution grounded in compromise and “deal making”. The endless search for consensus confuses the problem, and is a recipe for failure.

The State’s public bureaucracy is too conflicted with its own self interest to impartially govern health reform.

3.The plethora of proposed actions to reduce demand will not reduce costs. “Supply” being a more important driver of costs than ”Demand”.

Sustainable reform cannot tolerate the variation in provider pricing to patients with differing sources of payment. Perhaps less than 15% of the typical hospital’s patients pay what the hospital bills.

It is wrong headed to view reform as a matter of amending the existing system.

The United States spends twice as much per capita on health care because our health care workers of all stripes (including insurance companies,hospital sytems, government and pharmaceutical companies) s(take out twice as much from the system.

The health care structures of other countries, while instructive, are not transferrable to the United States.

Bonus:

The Oregon Healthcare Project rationing experiment was a colossal hoax that channeled billions of new dollars to Oregon’s health care interests. Never measured, never critically evaluated. It was a severe case of the “Emperor Wears No Clothes”.

Form 3 small task forces assembled around three ideologies: Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian to articulate assumptions, problem definition, and a broad solution compatible with each ideology.

At the end of the process examine what consolidation can occur and if not presume the development of 3 systems available to the free will of people to chose.

Liberal: Socially and fiscally liberal

Conservative: Fiscally and socially conservative

Libertarian: Socially liberal / Fiscally conservative

Note: The prospect of 3 systems capturing U.S. Healthcare, sounds daunting but in reality we have more than that now: Employer, Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, Municipal, Insured, Self funded etc.

Alternative List of Assumptions:

A sustainable health reform strategy cannot be achieved without the foundation of a well-conceived definition of the problem and formative assumptions.

Subsidized or “free” health care is inflationary and will overwhelm administrative protocols for cost reduction.

Genuine Altruism is rare and a widely abused cover for proprietary agendas. Excessive profit is a measure of good management.

The community’s health care pathology is infinite and those making a living and profits from health care will seek to capitalize on that.

Our health care system in the main is a proprietary endeavor with millions of economic interests seeking to protect or increase revenues. Any initiative that threatens that cash flow will be vigorously resisted.

Does the system tilt toward choice and self - determination or equalness, limited choice, and a central authority?

“Nearly half of all care delivered produces no medical benefit” is in obvious conflict with a prevailing view of vast health manpower shortages. Does increasing supply reduce prices and the costs of health care?

If the national will demands universal coverage, the utility of competing traditional insurance companies should be called into question.

The reformed system must promote individuals seeking care from the “best” provider of care as early as possible in the development of any adverse health care condition. Forcing patients into an inferior food chain of care is unethical and probably more costly in the end.

There is something wrong with a requirement to select a health plan, provider network, and insurance in advance of acquiring a dire condition, and then being locked out of access to the “best” provider.

Steve

I do not see consumers playing an active role in your assumptions to Repair the Healthcare System.

Obamacare is wasting money developing an entitlement system that cannot work. The only stakeholder that can develop a healthcare system that can work is a system driven by consumers.

Consumers can force the secondary stakeholders to be competitive and transparent, as they have done in other industries.

It would be cheaper for the government to invest in empowering all consumers using the revolution in information technology and providing financial incentives to all using My Ideal Medical Saving Accounts.

In 2010 the year Obamacare was passed, there were 5.7 million HSAs with balances totaling $7.7 billion.

The Obamacare bronze plan is the least expensive federal health insurance exchange plan. Its coverage is poor and it has a high deductible that most people cannot afford.

The premium and deductible are only good for patients with pre-existing illnesses that have no other place to purchase insurance. That is the reason the demographic for enrollees from healthcare.gov is so poor.

The government is loosening the noose on HSAs even though it is still restrictive.

You must have a qualifying high-deductible health insurance policy — and no other general health coverage — to be eligible for this HSA contribution privilege. For 2015 and 2016, a high-deductible policy is defined as one with a deductible of at least $1,300 for self-only coverage or $2,600 for family coverage.

For 2016, qualifying high-deductible policies can have out-of-pocket maximums of as much as $6,550 for self-only coverage and $13,100 for family coverage. For 2015, these amounts are $6,450 and $12,900, respectively.

If you are eligible to make an HSA contribution for a tax year, the deadline is April 15 of the following year (adjusted for weekends and holidays) to open an account and make a contribution for the earlier year.”

The government has increased the maximum deductible in 2015 and continues to increase in 2016.

Most large and small employers can afford to pay all or some of the high deductible and buy reinsurance for first dollar coverage beyond the deductible.

Both large employers and small employers are offering their employees health savings accounts. The full insurance premiums have become so high that employers are shifting the burden to employees by having the employee pay the deductible and the employer paying the reinsurance.

A great advantage to these plans now is that UnitedHealth has already negotiated the physicians’ and hospitals’ fees for you. The uninsured would pay retail price for the same services.

The cost to small to large companies is relatively difficult to find in an online search.

Most companies are self-insured and would not fall under the rigid coverage rules of Obamacare. The company can decide on the amount of the deductible they would pay for the employee.

The point of all this is health saving accounts are not as good as my ideal medical saving account. HSA’s do not provide enough incentive for employees or individuals to manage their health or healthcare dollars wisely as an MSA would.

A large defect in Obamacare is patients do not have incentive to be wise shoppers of their healthcare. They have restricted choice. They have little incentive to stay healthy because they have an entitlement program available that will take care of their expenses. There is no financial incentive for them to try and reduce the cost of healthcare.

If the consumers managed their health and healthcare dollars well the cost of healthcare would drop because the complications of chronic diseases would decrease to at least 50%.

If Republicans are looking for an alternative plan to the liberals’ and progressives’ inevitable march to a singe party payer system most of the infrastructure is already in place.

Only small modifications to the HSAs have to be made by the congress and the President and America would be on its way to a free market healthcare system.

This alternative healthcare system would align all of the stakeholders incentives including the government’s incentives, if the Obama administration did not want to increase its power by having more control over its people and its people’s freedom of choice.

Most of you are familiar with my slide of the demise of the healthcare system.

Obamacare is accelerating the total collapse of the healthcare system. Once total collapse has occurred Americans might beg for a complete government taken over of the healthcare system with a single party payer system.

I have pointed out most of Obamacare’s new rules causing the unintended consequences and accelerating the healthcare system’s demise.

An unintended consequence in the Accountable Care Organization leads to a new rule to correct the consequence. Unelected officials then create another rule. The new rule results in other unintended consequences. All of these consequences accelerate the healthcare system’s demise.

Obamacare’s first year in operation was 2014. The Obama administration started taxing everyone in 2010 to support the added expenses Obamacare would generate.

Only the individual insurance portion of Obamacare was initiated.

The following are examples of unintended consequences.

Fourteen million people lost their individual healthcare insurance coverage in 2012 because of Obamacare’s new rules. Insurance coverage premiums increased because of the ACA’s required coverage.

Many workers lost their full time jobs. They were put on part-time employment in order for employers to avoid Obamacare penalties.

CMS reported that 13 million signed up for Obamacare in 2014 despite the healthcare.gov website disaster. The number of enrollees was revised a few of times down to 6.6 million because of counting errors.

The direct and indirect costs of Obamacare were never reported to the public.

Obamacare activated a reinsurance program that was built into the Affordable Care Act. The reinsurance program was a bailout to entice the healthcare insurance industry to participate in the Federal Health Insurance Exchanges without experiencing any loses.

The insurance industry has claims the Obama administration owed it 2.5 billion dollars in 2014. The Obama administration was able to pay only 12%. The law restricted the government’s reinsurance payment to a certain percentage of the premiums paid. The amount owed as promised to the healthcare insurance industry for their participation in Obamacare was $2.2 billion short.

I believe the healthcare insurance industry will be loath to participate in the Federal Health Insurance Exchanges in 2017. UnitedHealth has already threatened to quit participating.

This year (2016) during open enrollment only 8.1 million enrolled in the Federal Health Insurance Exchanges.

It has been difficult to trust CMS’s overall claims for the number of enrollees. It has nothing to do with how many people have paid first premium or the anticipated number who will continue to pay premiums throughout the year.

President Obama stated in his state of the union speech that 18 million previously uninsured have received insurance under Obamacare. This is not true.

For argument’s sake let say his number is correct.

More than half the enrollees received Medicaid. President Obama is urging states to expand Medicaid.

What is going to happen when Medicaid is expanded? More people will get free government supplied healthcare insurance but will not be able to find physicians. Medicaid reimbursement is so poor that few physicians participate.

The healthcare system’s demise is rapidly accelerating. Obamacare’s claiming to increase people being covered but these people cannot obtain healthcare services.

Obamacare does not incentivize these people to be responsible consumers. Obesity continues to increase and the dollars spent for healthcare continues to increase.

The truth is enrollment has been terrible for 2016. President Obama is expanding the enrollment period again this year to try to increase enrollment.

The Obama administration has done nothing to verify whether these late arrivals are eligible for insurance. They just sign up and are insured.

People have figured out they can wait until they become ill or need medical services to sign up. They then sign up and pay their premiums a few months’ premiums. They stop paying their premiums after they have received their medical services. They figure they do not need insurance any more.

The Obama administration has told the healthcare insurance industry that it has heard their concerns. The problem is that CMS has not done anything about the insurance industry’s concerns.

“Many individuals have no incentive to enroll in coverage during open enrollment, but can wait until they are sick or need services before enrolling and drop coverage immediately after receiving services, making the annual open enrollment period meaningless,” Steven B. Kelmar, an executive vice president of Aetna.”

Twenty five percent of Aetna enrollees have signed up during the special extended enrollment periods. It has been reported that last year 950,000 people enrolled during the special enrollment period between February and July 2015.

“Kevin J. Moynihan, the chief executive of the federal insurance marketplace, said it shows the marketplace is working to meet people’s needs. He said certain life changes like losing your coverage, having a child, turning 26, moving or getting married may qualify you for a special enrollment period.”

People who are qualified for insurance do not get verified for insurance. It is easy to understand that this leads to unstable insurance markets and subsequent increases in premium prices.

It is o.k. for progressives if healthcare insurance is considered a right under a single party payer system with the losses taken by the government even if the deficit increases.

It is not o.k. if the Obamacare healthcare system pretends to be developing an efficient free enterprise system with the healthcare insurance industry experiencing the loss under the weight of unidentified risks created by the federal government.

The number of people not continuing to pay their insurance premiums their entire year is enormous. The healthcare insurance industry had no way of anticipating this occurrence.

“On average,” Aetna said, “special enrollment period enrollees stay with us for less than four months, while enrollees who come to us during the annual open enrollment period maintain their coverage on average for eight to nine months.”

The same turnover rate has happened to UnitedHealth. It is one of the many reasons UnitedHealth has threatened to quit participating in Obamacare in 2017.

The result will be even higher insurance premiums next year. Most of the Obamacare insurance rates are unaffordable this year.

There is no verification for late enrollment. The last statement by “Enroll America” reflects President Obama’s progressive and irresponsible attitude toward fiscal responsibility.

It is no wonder the national debt has grown to $19.2 trillion dollars.

It is another way to accelerate the collapse of the healthcare system.

I believe President Obama knows exactly what he is doing. His problem is he does not understand or care about the significance of the effect the deficit increase will have on America’s financial stability.

Middle class Americans are getting slaughtered.

Additionally he does not understand that Americans will not accept a government controlled single party payer system.

The Republican Party must get on the stick right now. They must offer a viable alternative to President Obama’s goal of a single party payer system. They should not wait until after the election.

The alternative should work in an efficient way. It should put consumers in charge of their health and healthcare dollars.

There are many simple and viable alternatives to Obamacare which Republicans should start considering.

Republicans should seriously consider My Ideal Medical Savings Account as an alterative to Obamacare. It is logical, simple, does not require a large complicated infrastructure and aligns all the stakeholders’ incentives.

Costs cannot be controlled by regulations without consumer involvement. Consumers of healthcare must understand the effectiveness of their care is dependent on their involvement in their own medical care.

Consumers’ adherence to treatment is a key component in the effectiveness of medical care.

The healthcare insurance industry takes 40 cents off the top of every insurance dollar that is spent. Consumers with both private insurance and government insurance are only getting 60 cents value for every healthcare dollar spent. The healthcare industry is allowed to do some strange accounting with their required reserves.

If this accounting method were repaired, premium costs would decrease.

Many of the rules written into Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid are so screwy they defy common sense and penalize consumers. One glaring rule is Medicare permitting hospitals to admit Medicare patients to the hospital for observation for 48 hours.

Consumers must become aware of these screwy rules and protest them. These rules have been written by the Obama administration to save the government money. These rules penalize patients the government professes to help.

Consumers are the only stakeholders that can motivate President Obama and congress to fix the significant points of waste in the healthcare system. Consumers have the power to vote.

MSAs provide added incentives over HSAs to obtain and maintain good health. Obesity is a major factor in the onset of chronic diseases. Consumers must be motivated to avoid obesity to maintain good health. MSAs can provide that incentive.

The MSA’s can replace every form of health insurance at a reduced cost. It limits the risk to the healthcare insurance industry while providing consumers with choice.

This would result in competition among healthcare providers. Competition would bring down the cost of healthcare.

Some people might not like MSA’s because they are liberating. They provide consumers of healthcare with freedom of choice. They also give consumers the opportunity to be responsible for their healthcare dollars while providing them with incentives to take care of their health.

MSAs could be used for private insurance purchasers, group insurance plans, employer self- insurance plans, State Funded self-insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid.

In each case the funding source is different. The cost of the high deductible insurance is low because the risk is low.

If it were a $6,000 deductible MSA, the first $6,000 would be placed in a trust for the consumer. Whatever they did not spend would go into a retirement trust. If they spent over $6,000 they would receive first dollar healthcare insurance coverage. Their trust would obviously receive no money that year.

The incentive would be for consumers to take care of their health so they do not get sick and end up in an expensive emergency room.

If a person had a chronic illness such as asthma, Diabetes Mellitus, or heart disease with a tendency to congestive heart failure and ended up in the emergency room they would use up their $6,000.

If they took care of themselves by spending $3,000 of their $6,000 trust their funding source could afford to give their trust a $1500 reward. The benefit to the funding source is it saved money by the consumer not being admitted to the hospital. The patient stayed healthy and was more productive.

President Obama does not want to try this out. He wants consumers and businesses to be dependent of the central government for everything.

MSAs would lead to consumer independence from central government control of our healthcare. MSAs would put all consumers at whatever socioeconomic level in charge of their own destiny.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

Please have a friend subscribe

Republicans who really want to repair the healthcare system should take notice of these suggestions. They should stop proposing complicated alternatives to Obamacare that will not work.

Republicans should start trying to understand the real problems in the healthcare system.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

I formulated an alternative to Obamacare in 2006, long before Obamacare existed. President Obama has ignored a plan that will work and align every stakeholder’s incentive.

Obamacare is failing because President Obama does not know who the customer is in the healthcare system. He is blinded by ideology and the belief that government knows what consumers need.

The consumer is the customer. Without consumers of medical care and physicians to provide medical care we would not need a healthcare system.

Consumers and physicians are the primary stakeholders. All the others are secondary stakeholders.

However, physicians receive between 15-20% of the healthcare dollars. Hospitals receive 25% of the healthcare dollars.

Where does the remaining 60% of the healthcare dollars go?

The insurance industry takes at least 40% off the top. The pharmaceutical industry receives 10% and the government wastes 10%.

It is a pity that only 40% of our healthcare dollars is spent on direct medical care. There is much waste and inefficiency built into that direct medical care.

There is also much waste included in the 60% the secondary stakeholder take off the top.

How else would UnitedHealth’s CEO get paid $1.8 billion dollars in cash and stock options from 1998 to 2006?

The excessive insurance industry profits are the direct result of ineffective regulatory agencies controlling insurance pricing.

In 2006 consumer power was demonstrated when UnitedHealth tried to decrease reimbursement to Hospital Corporations of America. HCA protested and threated to quit participation in United Health. Consumer protests followed.

UnitedHealth was the main insurance carrier in the Denver Area. Consumers threated to boycott buying insurance from UnitedHealth. UnitedHealth backed off.

In 2006, many of the uninsured were self employed consumers who cannot qualify for insurance because they have a preexisting illness or they are at risk for illness.

The insurance companies refused to sell them insurance. The same consumer in a group insurance plan by law would receive insurance from the same insurance company that turned down the individual.

A self-employed individual can only buy insurance with after tax dollars. A corporate employee receives healthcare insurance coverage with pre-tax dollars.

The same applies for the individual insurance market post Obamacare.

The price of insurance is very high for small businesses. The small business owners do not have the negotiating power of the large corporations.

This results in both the individual and small business not being covered by healthcare insurance. All of the above can be easily fixed.

The problem with Obamacare is the insurance premiums are higher than they were pre- Obamacare. The reasons are obvious.

The only winner is the individual who makes a low enough income to receive a federal subsidy. The loser is the taxpayer.

Obamacare also creates a perverse incentive resulting in people not striving to get ahead.

In 2006 I wrote:

Patients drive the healthcare system. Patients have tremendous power. They must be taught to use that power in order to Repair the Healthcare System.

Patients must use their “Patient Power” to take control of their healthcare dollars and their health. They should be provided with financial incentives to save the money they spend on medical care.

Neither the healthcare insurance industry nor the government should determine the consumers’ access to care. Patients’ freedom of choice and self- responsibility is the key to Repairing the Healthcare System.

If there are financial incentives consumers will learn to become informed consumers of healthcare. Reliable education must be provided to give consumers the opportunity to become informed consumers.

There are preconditions.

Prices must be transparent so consumers know what they are buying. The insurance industry should negotiate the price with the physicians and the hospitals. The industry can remain the surrogate broker for the payment of money belonging to the consumer. Consumers’ who overspend will not receive the financial incentive. They will lose their medical saving account money. Patients who have an expensive illness, like diabetes, can be rewarded for spending money if they keep themselves in good health and prevent complications of disease.

The consumers are then the responsible party purchasing their medical care. It is not the healthcare insurance industry or the government.

The healthcare insurance industry or any financial industry with an adequate computer system can be the administrator and adjudicator of payment.

The medical outcome is a dual responsibility of both consumers and physicians. Consumers should be made aware of physicians’ outcomes. Some of the poor outcomes are the result of consumers not taking the responsibility to learn about their disease, prevent the complications of their disease, or comply with the treatment recommended. The result is a poor outcome.

Consumer overspending is another important aspect of increasing healthcare costs. Consumers do not have incentive to be cautious with their healthcare dollars because they have been given first dollar coverage. They do not have financial incentives to save money on medical care.

The Health Saving Accounts that congress has approved in my opinion is impotent. It does not provide a strong enough financial incentive for consumers to want to save money.

The trust account of $1,000 per year is too low to motivate consumers to become wise shoppers. A Medical Savings Account of $6,000 per year begins to represent financial motivation.

HSA’s represent the same false hope HMO’s and managed care represented in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Dr. Fuchs calls it “The Restaurant Check Problem.”

“You go out to a restaurant with a bunch of friends and you sort of understand that you will split the check,” he said.

“The waiter comes along and says, ‘the lobster looks very good, and how about a soufflé for dessert?’

The restaurant check balloons, but you are not so careful because you figure everyone is splitting it.

“That’s the way medical care gets paid for,” he said.

Dr. Fuchs added, “We want to spend our money on the things that will bring the most value for the dollar.

When we are spending collective money as we are in health care, then it becomes much more difficult.”

We want Diabetics to spend money for good medical care in order to prevent complications. Prevention of complications will keep Diabetics out of the hospital and out of the emergency room. The result will be a decrease in medical costs.

The consumer driven healthcare plans can be set up to give provide Diabetic consumer the financial motivation to take care of himself. This reward is much cheaper than paying for a hospitalization or emergency room visit.

If an insurance product is overloaded with salaries, waste, overhead and unnecessary benefits patients will not buy the product.

The insurance product would have to be modified. It would become more cost efficient.

Patients have it in their power to remove the waste and inefficiency in the system.

Some very clever entrepreneur will realize the consumer is the customer. He will develop an insurance product that everyone wants. State governments have the power to encourage development of this product.

The examples in industry in America are numerous. Sam Walton revolutionized retailing in America with Wal-Mart and Sam’s. Michael Dell almost brought IBM to its knees and revolutionized the distribution of information technology.

I hope to show the way to develop an insurance product that can work for patients first and then all the other stakeholders.

There is no reason we cannot provide excellent affordable insurance coverage to all including the corporate employed, the small business employed, the self employed, the unemployed, and the Medicare covered seniors, with all the stakeholders making a reasonable profit in a simplified system.

President Obama, I have provided a viable alternative long before you became President.

I also provided this alternative to you when you became President in the letters I wrote to you.

For you to say no one has come up with a better alternative than Obamacare is disingenuous on your part.

I hope you are listening now.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

The solution to repairing the healthcare system is simple. The
healthcare system must be consumer driven. If consumers were in control of their
healthcare dollars and were responsible for their health and their healthcare
choices the cost of the healthcare system would decrease to manageable levels.

Presently President Obama is trying to eliminate Health Savings
Accounts. HSAs are the single greatest threat to his goal for a single party
payer system. They are also the fastest growing healthcare insurance product.

The lack of transparency for hospitals, healthcare insurance
companies, drug companies and physicians must be eliminated. The public must
demand that the healthcare insurance industry make their expenses transparent
so that its exorbitant salaries and profits can be clearly understood.

When this happens the consumers can become independent
intelligent consumers. Consumers will become independent of government and its
bureaucracy.

The Obama administration wants consumers to be more dependent on
government not less dependent.

Intelligent independent Consumers will force the other
stakeholders to be competitive. Competition will drive healthcare costs down.

Government cost controls will not drive prices down. They will
simply distort prices and cause more spending.

Private sources such as Angie’s list help consumers decide on
which plumber to hire. It is important and creates competition and price
lowering. However the defect in Angie’s list is that it is based on other
consumers’ opinions.

It is not based on specific costs or origins of the cost to the
plumber or the measurement of the plumber’s skill. It only deals with price and
consumer satisfaction. Angie’s list does make plumbers competitive.

Competition for consumers will bring down the cost of healthcare.
By forcing consolidation of doctors and
hospitals Obamacare will decrease competition and increase prices.

Healthcare
policy wonks dismiss this concept because they believe consumers are not smart
enough or interested enough in learning to be intelligent healthcare consumers.
They are wrong.

Their thnking is correct if a system exists where consumers are
spending other people’s money. Obamacare is such a system. It will drive costs
up just as the private first dollar coverage system has driven healthcare
prices up.

There is no financial incentive for healthcare consumers to try
to save money and preserve their health.

Obamacare is a huge entitlement with an overwhelming budget that
will be impossible to execute. We have seen that to be true with ever increasing
waivers and the most recent delay in the mandate until 2015. There will be delays in other critical
portions of Obamacare in the near future. It could be delayed forever because
it cannot be executed.

By 2017, four more
provinces — Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and New Brunswick — will
spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the institute.

Total federal, provincial
and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1 percent annually.
Canada’s GDP increased by 6.7 percent during the same period. The math is
obvious. The Canadian healthcare entitlement system is not working.

“Unsustainable rates of
growth in health care spending crowd out the resources available for other
purposes including education, public safety, and economic growth-enhancing tax
relief,” Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Nadeem Esmail told The Daily Caller
News Foundation in an email.”

Only 20% of the people utilize the healthcare system at any on
time. If consumers know they are entitled to healthcare and the healthcare
system will fix them if they get sick, consumers of healthcare feel protected. The
feelings of eighty percent of consumers who are not sick believe the system is
great until they have to interact with the system. In this system of
entitlement consumers have a tendency to not take care of their health. This makes them more likely to interact with
the system in the future when they are very sick. The result is increasing
healthcare costs.

Once an entitlement is created it is almost impossible to
eliminate it even though it has proved ineffective and costly.

Consumers are realizing that Obamacare is much too complicated
and impossible to execute. Rather than demanding repeal and eliminating the
concept of instituting an entitlement program, the New York Times is publishing
letters from readers that are demanding a single party payer system to simplify
the system.

Let us stop making the same mistakes over and over again.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Please click on all the links to study
the references to each spoke. It will help you visualize the power of the business
model.

The ideal future state business
model for the healthcare system must include the execution of ideas in the specific spokes outlined below.. These spokes
will serve to align all of the stakeholders’ interests.

The business model must
contain appropriate rules for a consumer driven healthcare system, an ideal
electronic medial record, and an ideal medical savings account.

The ideal medical saving
accounts can work optimally when there is significant tort reform and patients
take full responsibility for their health and healthcare dollars.

Consumer education is critical to the business
model of the future. Educational modules can be available to consumers 24/7 via
the Internet. These educational modules must be an extension of consumers
physicians’ care in order to be effective. The education can become available
using a series of social networks.

Chronic disease self-management education can
be achieved by the use of interactive online teaching programs. Patients can be
linked to share their disease experience through private social networks.

Most believe that the healthcare system must
have greater integration of care. This integration of care can be done
virtually through a series of private integrated networks.

Effective integration can be achieved without
disruption of the entire healthcare system. Obamacare has been disruptive to
the entire healthcare system.

Obamacare is forced integration by the
government will be slow, costly and unsuccessful.

Physicians must be compensated for the presently
uncompensated time necessary to execute each one of the spokes of the wheel.

Each spoke is necessary to convert the
healthcare system into a system that once more makes the physician patient
relationship paramount.

The future business plan removes control of the
healthcare system from the government. It permits the patient to have the freedom
to choose his own healthcare course.

Tort reform is vital to the 2020 business model.
It will decrease costly over-testing to avoid frivolous malpractice suits.
There are many ways to set up a tort reform system that truly protects patients
from real harm while eliminating over-testing. It limits the malpractice
litigation system. Punitive damages must be lowered. Losers in lawsuits must
pay all fees. These two provisions will decrease lawyers’ incentive to sue.

Consumer driven healthcare will create a system
that promotes personal responsibility by the consumers’ for their health and
health care dollars.

The ideal medical savings accounts would
provide the financial incentive for consumers to drive the healthcare system.
It would dis-intermediate the healthcare insurance industry’s grasp on first
dollar coverage and profits. The insurance industry would realize that its
profit margin would increase under this system.

In order to decrease patients’ dependency on
the government and increase being
responsible for themselves, a system of education using information technology
as an extension of their physicians’ care has to be developed and put into
place.

In order to decrease the cost of medical care,
medical care must be integrated. At present, primary care physicians recommend
specialists. The primary care physicians know whether the specialists are doing
a good job by the specialists’ treatment results with their patients.

Most of the time physicians do not know their
specialists’ fees. These fees must be totally transparent to primary care
physicians and their patients. The primary care physicians can then be in a
position to help their patients choose appropriate specialists.

It will also reduce the specialists’ prices
because they will be forced to become competitive by the patients in a consumer
driven system.

Hospital fees must also be transparent. One of
the reasons I am opposed to hospital systems hiring physicians and paying them
a salary is the hospital systems would then be able to develop a monopoly in a
town or area of town. This would permit the hospital system to raise prices
without informing patients or physicians.

Hospital systems could erase physicians’ choices
and hindered patients from having the freedom to choose a hospital or
specialist of their choice with their primary care physicians. It devalues the
patient physician relationship.

Many of these records are hard to use and
provide inflexible data. The inflexible data leads to healthcare policy
decisions that are wrong. The data is also used to commoditize medical care.

Commoditized medical care is not the best quality
of medical care.

If the government is so smart it should develop
a fully functional electronic medical record and provide it to all hospital
systems and practices for free.

The EMR should be put in the cloud. Providers
should be charged by the click. The government can service and upgrade the EMR
in one place and improve the quality of data collected. The data should be used
for educational purposes only and be owned by the patients and physicians. It
should not be used for punitive purposes. The inaccurate data is now used for
punitive purposes. The result has been a lack of physician cooperation.

The healthcare journey to an ideal future state
must begin in an orderly way. The principle goal is to be consumer centric. It
must be consumer driven and force the secondary stakeholders to be transparent
and competitive.

This journey will wring the excess costs out of the healthcare
system. It will create a democratic system affordable to all.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

Consumers must drive the systems by being responsible for their own healthcare decisions and own their healthcare dollars even if they are subsidized by the government.

Another critcal element in business model for the future state is effective tort reform. Ideally defensive medical testing has to be eliminated completely. Defensive medical costs the healthcare system between $300-500 billion dollars a year

A summary of the misalign insentives must be understood and examine . There is a way to align all the primary and secondary stakeholders incentives. It must be agreed too that consumers are the primary stakeholders and physicians are next. Most of the control and power in the system has shifted to the secondary stakeholder namely the government, the hospital systems and mostly the healthcare insurance industry.

The government must understand that the only way to reduce cost is to shift the responsibility of controlling costs from the government to consumers.

My ideal Medical Saving Accounts are an excellent way of providing financial incentives to achieve good health in a consumer driven system. The achievement of good health will drive down the costs to the healthcare system. The incidence of costly complications of disease will be reduced.

My ideal Electronic Medical Record is an important innovation. It is inexpensive to physicians. The data belongs to patients and their physicians and set up in a way that it is not punitive to physicians. It should be a fully functional EMR.

All physicians know that medical care decisions making and judging the quality of medical care by electronic data is faulty. All the EMR's are expensive. They also put physicians in a vulnerable position to be judged by faulty data. My Ideal EMR helps physicians track their patients and improve their medical communications and care.

It is important that consumer become responsible for their own Personal Medical Record. The ideal EMR permits patients to download their records with their tests to their own computer or flash drive. Consumers should carry their medical records at all times in case of emergency.

Social Networking is the key to a consumer driven healthcare system. The possibilities are compelling.

In the last blog post I have discussed how a former Canadian
physician (now a U.S. physician) felt about the Canadian system.

The next question is does the Canadian Healthcare System work for the
Canadian government?

The answer is No!

The Canadian deficit resulting from the Canadian healthcare system is mounting at a unsustainable rate in a country that is already overtaxed. The problem is
the government is not admitting it and the U.S. government and media are
ignoring it.

I have discussed how patients I interviewed in Canada feel about
their healthcare system. Some of Canadians are bitter about Canadian physicians
immigrating to the U.S. because the practice conditions are better in the U.S. than
in Canada.

The Canadians complained that physicians coming to Canada from
India and China are not being licensed to practice medicine despite the severe
physician shortage. Most of these physicians are driving taxicabs.

I included a You Tube of Canada patients raving about the Canada
Healthcare system.

The people interviewed looked healthy and probably did little
interacting with the healthcare system.

Is the Canadian healthcare system good or a least better than the
U.S. healthcare system?

There have been two recent articles in American newspapers that
applaud the Canadian system.

“You should not believe what you read about the
court in the newspapers,” Scalia said. “Because the information has either been
made up or given to the newspapers by somebody who is violating a confidence,
which means that person is not reliable.”

Its 2011 report contradicts the statistics in these articles
concerning the Canadian government healthcare costs.

Article 1. “Ten percent of Canada's GDP is
spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17
percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever
and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is
considerably more expensive than Canada's.”

Article
2. “In 2009, Canada spent 11.4 percent
of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, which puts it on the slightly
higher end of OECD countries.”

This is not true
according to the Fraser report. Six of ten Canadian provinces are on track to
spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the institute. To be
specific, in 2011, health care spending consumed 50 percent of revenues in
Canada’s two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

These two articles are
either copying other inaccurate articles or copying each other. It could be
they are just reporting provincial (states) spending and not total costs.
Healthcare costs in Canada are rising faster than the GDP.

“Total
federal, provincial and territorial government health spending has grown by 8.1
percent annually, while the national GDP in Canada rose by only 6.7 percent
during the same period.”

Article 1 states that
the decision making for treatment and tests needed are made exclusively by the
patients’ physicians. We know this is not true because of the rationing of care
and the long wait times to see a physician.

“In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how
they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should
be.”

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your
family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one.”

Article 2. statesthe opposite. “The Canadian health care system was
built around the principle that all citizens will receive all “medically
necessary and hospital physician services.” To that end, each of Canada’s 10
provinces and three territories finance and run a statewide health insurance
program with federal aid. There is no cost-sharing for the health care services
guaranteed under federal law.”

The Fraser report
describes the actions the provincial governments have taken in response to the
rapidly rising costs.

The provincial
governments have raised taxes and rationed care, increasing patient wait times.
This agrees with the reactions of the people I interviewed

“Provincial
drug plans have also more often refused to pay for most of the drugs that are
certified as “safe and effective” by Health Canada.”

“Unsustainable
rates of growth in health care spending crowd out the resources available for
other purposes including education, public safety, and economic
growth-enhancing tax relief,”

Despite Canada’s
increase in federal funding and rationing of care the cost of care increases.
The federal government has encouraged the individual provinces to make the
necessary reforms to increase their efficiency and decrease bureaucratic waste.
The low overhead figures quoted by the two U.S. newspaper articles are wrong.

By 2017,
four more provinces — Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and New Brunswick
— will spend half of their revenues on health care, according to the institute.”

“Federal
funding is not a solution: the federal government has already transferred
billions more in health funding to the provinces than the amounts needed to
keep up with general price inflation or population growth.

The study added that none of the government’s rationing efforts
have made the growth of government spending on health care sustainable.

All Canadians want a comfortable entitlement for healthcare. I do
not blame them.

The problem is entitlements are too expensive for the government. They don’t work because governments cannot
legislate behavior by directives. Individuals must be responsible for their
health and healthcare dollars. Using incentive programs government can help
people be responsible to and for them.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

MSAs provide added incentives over HSAs to obtain and maintain good health. Obesity is a major factor in the onset of chronic diseases. Consumers must be motivated to avoid obesity to maintain good health. MSAs can provide that incentive.

The MSA’s can replace every form of health insurance at a reduced cost. It limits the risk to the healthcare insurance industry while providing consumers with choice.

This would result in competition among healthcare providers. Competition would bring down the cost of healthcare.

Some people might not like MSA’s because they are liberating. They provide consumers of healthcare with freedom of choice. They also give consumers the opportunity to be responsible for their healthcare dollars while providing them with incentives to take care of their health.

MSAs could be used for private insurance purchasers, group insurance plans, employer self insurance plans, State Funded self-insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid.

In each case the funding source is different. The cost of the high deductible insurance is low because the risk is low.

If it were a $6,000 deductible MSA, the first $6,000 would be placed in a trust for the consumer. Whatever they did not spend would go into a retirement trust. If they spent over $6,000 they would have first dollar healthcare insurance coverage. Their trust would obviously receive no money that year.

The incentive would be for consumers to take care of their health so they do not get sick and end up in an expensive emergency room.

If a person had a chronic illness such as asthma, Diabetes, or health disease with a tendency to congestive heart failure and ended up in the emergency room they would use up their $6,000.

If they took care of themselves by spending $3,000 of their $6,000 trust their funding source could afford to give their trust a $1500 reward. The benefit to the funding source is it saved money by the consumer not being admitted to the hospital. The patient stayed healthy and was more productive.

President Obama does not want to try this out. He wants consumers and businesses to be dependent of the central government for everything.

MSAs would lead to consumer independence from central government control of our healthcare. MSAs would put all consumers at whatever socioeconomic level in charge of their own destiny.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

It is important for the government and the healthcare industry to continue to blame physicians for being the villain in our dysfunctional healthcare system.

Remember physician receive only 10% of the healthcare dollars spent in our healthcare system. Who receives the other 90%? What value do the other recipient add to medical care?

The medias quoted prices are a scare tactic to keep government’s control of the healthcare system advancing.

What is going to happen after Obamacare is repealed?

There will still be millions uninsured.

There will still be millions who cannot buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

There will still be millions who choose not to purchase coverage.

There will still be inefficiency and waste in the healthcare system.

Stakeholders are adjusting to the potential restrictions of Obamacare. They are finding new ways to game the healthcare system.

Healthcare costs will rise and inefficiency in the healthcare system will increase whether we have Obamacare or not.

President Obama is trying to set rules and create regulations to eliminate potential solutions to our healthcare system’s problems.

He is trying to regulate and eliminate high deductible insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts. Under Obamacare it will be much cheaper for employers to pay the penalty than provide healthcare insurance for their employees.

Employees will be forced to buy insurance from President Obama’s health insurance exchange (Public Option). There will be no other options. At that point the government has full control of healthcare.

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the government could afford another potentially inefficient entitlement program. President Obama is clearly trying to squeeze complete government control of healthcare through the back door.

It will not work!

What should be done?

The government must create a real marketplace for healthcare insurance. A marketplace constructed for the benefit of consumers and not secondary stakeholders’ vested interests. Stakeholders would adjust because of their competitive compulsion to get customers. They will compete for consumer business by lowering healthcare costs.

The mindset must change to a consumer driven system not a government driven system.

My Ideal Medical Saving Account would be an excellent way to provide full first dollar healthcare insurance coverage for unplanned medical expenses. It would also provide financial incentive for consumers to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

These are some of the rules that government should have.

1. Healthcare insurance policies should be “guaranteed renewable.”

2. Healthcare policies should include a right to purchase insurance in the future regardless of pre-existing illness.

3. Healthcare insurance policies should follow you from job to job regardless of a move across state lines.

“ Solicitor General Donald Verrilli explained as much in his opening statement to the Supreme Court: “The individual market does not provide affordable health insurance,” he noted, “because the multibillion dollar subsidies that are available” for the “employer market are not available in the individual market.”

My Ideal Medical Savings Account could apply to Medicare and Medicaid. It provides incentives and real healthcare insurance coverage. It allows the consumer to choose. It encourages consumers to be knowledgeable shoppers for healthcare.

The government is spending that money already. The mandate will not stop the emergency room use.

A consumer driven healthcare system using My Ideal Medical Saving Accounts would provide incentives for the indigent or those of modest means to try to save money for them by taking care of their health. The government provides those educational resources already. This might encourage its use.

The emergency room treatment expenses for indigent and uninsured are not the central reason for rising healthcare costs. Costs are rising because people, who do have insurance, and their doctors, overuse health services and don’t shop on price.

The Ideal Medical Savings Accounts should be fully tax deductible to both individual and groups. The healthcare system would then become consumer driven. Consumers would become price sensitive because of financial incentives. A competitive healthcare market would then be created. The result would be a decrease in the cost of healthcare. It certainly would be cheaper than the artificial, bizarre, government controlled healthcare market for we have today.

Enlarging government control would make the healthcare market more expensive and less efficient than the unsustainable government controlled healthcare system that exists.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

The costs of healthcare system have become unsustainable. There are many ways to reduce the costs in a sensible way. Pay for performance is not one of them.

President Obama and others have concluded that the way to reduce the costs is to change the way physicians are reimbursed.

President Obama is ignoring the fact that physicians receive only 10 to 15% of the healthcare dollars spent.

Who is the rest of the money going to?

Pay for Performance (P4P) is stupid idea to me. It sounds good to some.

P4P failed to produce cost savings during the major pilot program by undefined criteria. President Obama is rolling out the program to the rest of the country because he and his healthcare staff believe in it.

In my opinion P4P will only increase the cost of healthcare.

I offer President Obama a piece of advice. He should listen to retired physicians who practiced medicine for many years and understands patients’ wants and needs.

It is entirely possible that President Obama wants to collapse the healthcare system and have the government become the payer of last resort. Then he can create his beloved “single party payer” healthcare system.

Medicare is a “single party payer” in its present form is unsustainable and will disappear in 2016 or 2021. The addition of another 30 million people to its roles will make it less sustainable.

The problem with a single party payer system is that it will not work in America. It is turning out that it does not work in England and many other countries.

A retired radiation oncologist sent me this comment about the Pay For Performance (P4P) concept.

P4P?

Now there's an excellent example of a term that sounds good but, absent a definition of the second "P", has no meaning at all.

I haven't heard anybody address that issue in a way that could be understood and accepted by all of the parties at interest. Patients, physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies might be considered in the same light as the proverbial blind men describing the elephant of performance.

Perhaps, instead of "evidence-based medicine" we could look at developing the concept of "goals based medicine".

Yogi Berra is credited with the thought, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there".

If the second "P" stands for performance, the question is begged, "Whose performance?" The assumption is made that the party doing the performing is the physician, I suppose.

If that is the case, how is performance to be measured?

Patient satisfaction? (pretty subjective).

Compliance with some set of guidelines? (If so, whose guidelines?)

Restoration of health of the patient? (Now there's an interesting idea, that sounds pretty good, but must take into account the state of health being experienced by the patient before the current illness began.)

Quality of life? (Who defines that?)

Relief of symptoms? (Pretty easy to assess, but different patients will define the severity of symptoms differently, and nobody else's definition really matters to each one of them. People "suffer" differently, and some of their suffering is culturally derived.)

Extension of some number of life-years? (Quality adjusted, or just more years? Who can tell?)

Almost never, in the initial transaction between a physician and a patient and family is there any conversation about the goals or expectations to be accomplished in the experience the "system participants" are entering into and sharing.

I would suggest that such an interaction might be the place to begin to define "performance". Were the expectations met? If they were, we have done our job. If they were not met, there is either more work to be done in the current relationship between physician and patient, or there is a need for the formation of a new relationship between the patient and a new physician.

Left unsaid is that such a discussion of goals and expectations, if held as early as possible in the relationship, may be the time for the physician to share with the patient what is capable of being accomplished, in contrast to what is expected to be accomplished.

Only when these terms are understood by all of the parties, can "performance" be adequately measured,

If "P4P" becomes the way services are valued, it is the only rational process through which the transaction can result in fair compensation.

Bureaucrats sitting in offices far away cannot do this, only those directly involved in any clinical situation can.

And, to makes matters more difficult, every clinical situation will differ from every other clinical situation in one way or another.

This physicians comment is an excellent argument for a Consumer Driven Healthcare System. Consumers must have the right to pursue their own destiny and be responsible for their own choices.

Consumers must own their healthcare dollars even it those dollars are given to them by the government. Consumers must have a financial incentive to be responsible for their own health and healthcare needs.

My Ideal Medical Savings Account accomplishes this. It can provide first dollar coverage to all at a lower cost to the healthcare system presently and motivate Americans to have a healthier life style further reducing the cost.

Mandates do not work!

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.

The Health Savings Accounts keep premium dollars in the healthcare insurance industry’s control at the end of the year. Consumers are able to use unspent money on healthcare deductible in the future.

The Ideal Medical Saving Account puts the money not spent in a separate tax-free trust for consumers’ retirement. The logic is to reward consumers for good health financially and to encourage consumers to be responsible for their health and healthcare choices.

The goal is not to reward the healthcare insurance company it is to reward consumers. The healthcare insurance industry is controlling the consumer’s money for its own profit.

Despite its faults HSA’s are becoming very popular. It is the fastest growing healthcare insurance product in America.

President Obama wants to eliminate HSAs. His goal is to increase government control over consumers’ healthcare choices. He does not want consumers to control their healthcare dollars. He wants to control consumers.

The healthcare insurance industry’s goal is to maximize its profit. It is not concerned about the consumer’s health. The more consumers in the healthcare system the more premium dollars the healthcare insurance industry controls.

Using the power of lobbying and the influence of lobbyists it has been able to rig the game against the consumer.

"Wendell Potter, former senior executive[1] at Cigna turned whistle-blower, has written that the insurance industry has worked to kill "any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits" by engaging in extensive and well funded, anti-reform campaigns."

"This is nothing new. However, as consumers (patients in all three categories) the Internet and social networking can empower us to have more influence over the politicians than lobbyists."

"After all, we are the people who give them their jobs. Some might say this is a naïve view. However, recent events have shown the effect of People Power and its ability to disrupt the establishment and its lobbyists.

The industry, however, "goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view," including the use of "front groups." Indeed, in a 1998 effort to successfully kill the Patient Bill of Rights at that time, “the insurers formed a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition to kill efforts to pass a Patients Bill of Rights.

The question is why would the National Federation of Independent Business or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce do this? They either don’t understand the healthcare insurance industry’s motives or they received grant money from the healthcare insurance industry. Both groups are working against the benefit of it own people.

"Like most front groups, the Health Benefits Coalition was set up and run out of one of Washington’s biggest P.R. firms. The P.R. firm provided all the staff work for the Coalition. The tactics worked. Industry allies in Congress made sure the Patients’ Bill of Rights would not become law."[2]"

Obamacare and the Democratic congress have also yielded to the demands of the healthcare insurance industry. President Obama’s goal is to control all medical decisions for patients to keep healthcare costs down. Most advocates of Obamacare overlook this fact.

President Obama’s individual mandated purchase of healthcare insurance would increase the number healthcare industry’s customers. Its profits would increase.

Medicare and Medicaid are totally dependent on the healthcare insurance industry for administrative services. This results in keeping the healthcare insurance industry in control of healthcare spending. The 2.5% overhead for Medicare and Medicaid continuosly repeated by government officials is completely bogus.

The healthcare insurance industry receives at least 30% of every Medicare and Medicaid dollar spent.

The administrative services costs are supposed to be no more than 15%. However, large sums of administrative costs are applied to direct patient care. Each administrative cost has a profit center attached to it.

These profits center increases the healthcare industry’s profits. In turn the salaries of the executives increase.

The Ideal Medical Savings Account eliminates all these layers of bureaucracy, profits and abuses.

The Ideal Medical Savings Account puts the power back in consumers’ hands.

Neither traditional insurance plans or Medicare or Medicaid provide financial incentives for patient to be responsible for their disease nor their healthcare needs.

Financial incentive for all categories of patients (consumers) can serve to increase adherence to physician’s treatment instructions.

Financial incentives can stimulate consumers to be educated consumers of both healthcare and medical care.

Financial incentives can serve to incentivize patients to become professors of their chronic disease. Self-management can avoid many emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

Instant adjudication of claims can decrease many of the excessive administrative costs.

The Ideal Medical Savings Account is simple and transparent to consumers.

IMSAs revives the patient physician relationship. It drives the government and the healthcare insurance industry to the edge of the medical care transaction. It disrupts the hairball and will instantly disrupt the food chain that is failing under the weight of healthcare costs.

The Ideal Medical Savings Account is a perfect healthcare insurance product if deployed properly. Social networks must be formed to demand its availability in order to permit consumers’ (patients) to drive the healthcare system.

Social networks on other levels can force physicians to be more competitive.

The result would be a reduction in the healthcare system’s cost while eliminating administrative abuse, waste and fraud.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” is, mine and mine alone

I am pleased that I am able to stimulate comments from physicians in various parts of the country. Please keep the comments coming.

Many of these physicians feel trapped by the bureaucracy and medical care policies that are restricting them from developing a real physician patient relationship. The physician patient relationship is precious to the practice of medicine.

The patient has a complaint, the physician listens (or not), performs an examination (or not) makes a decision regarding the probable cause of the complaint, writes a prescription (or two, or three), offers some instructions regarding what the patient should be doing to help himself (or herself), says goodbye and asks that the patient return at some future date for reassessment (or not).”

Physicians have been trapped into this behavior as John Goodman pointed out. The patient physician relationship has been destroyed by the dysfunctional healthcare system. Obamacare is accelerating the dysfunction in the healthcare system.

Physicians might even give the patient a shot of something for good measure to prevent a malpractice suit.

The government, hospitals systems, and healthcare insurance industry control the healthcare system.

These secondary stakeholders have made physicians commodities. Physicians are trapped into going through the motions. Medicine is a calling not a business. Physicians have been forced into making it a business.

Physicians are so frustrated with the system that they are joining hospital systems to rid themselves of the bureaucracy and avoid practice responsibility and malpractice suits.

The hope is that it will lead to a “happier life.” Not true.

The privileged hospital employed physicians become the designated spokesperson by the hospital administrator for the staff physicians. They deny there is any anger or frustration toward the government, the hospital system or the healthcare insurance industry.

The rest of the physicians keep their mouth shut and trudge along angry and frustrated.

There is a mountain of pent up anger and frustration toward hospital systems by these physicians.

I received this note from another physician writer,

“Dr. Feld:

When I read your post last week “It’s All About Patients and Physicians”, I thought you were writing to me directly. I have been thinking about this for years. It is not only that software innovation in Medicine lags behind every other industry, but also the focus has not been in the correct area. As with everything else, the medical profession has given control to others.”

This physician is absolutely correct. In a country whose administration and congress is run by lobbyists who are not interested in patients or physicians but are more interested in protecting and furthering their clients’ vested interests the problems will not be solved. Medicine and Surgery do not have adequate representation or resources to make their case to the public.

Perhaps it is because the AMA is too democratic or too civil. The AMA’s customers are physicians. Physicians have deserted the AMA because of lack of representation.

I think the AMA might still have a chance with some bold leadership. After all without patients or physicians you wouldn’t have need for a “healthcare system.”

He goes on,

“Current software tools allow the development of disruptive systems that can put patients and physicians on the same side of the equation, develop networks to allow much better communications, and integrate the future of mobile devices that will transform healthcare. It should be possible to produce change in current relationships.”

It is not only possible it is probable. I need a Posse of consumers to step out and force the secondary stakeholders to not take advantage of them. This must be a consumer driven effort.

Consumers can be organized through social networking just as Internet companies, venture capitalists and citizen expressed their voice on the Internet and stopped the two Censorship Acts (SOPA and PIPA) that were being railroaded through congress. The traditional media did not cover these two bills until the organized effort was working.

President Obama backed these bills until it was obvious to all that the anti-censorship effort expressed the will of the American people.

Patients (consumers) need leadership and innovative software to demand that they own their healthcare dollars and healthcare care decisions.

I believe many physicians yearn for the ability to spend more time with their patients. Patients must demand it also and pressure the government to relinquish control over our healthcare system.

This writer/ physician’s note to me expresses this desire. It is an important story about the physician patient relationship’s key role in patient care.

“Let me begin with a story. I take care of an elderly man who lives in Brooklyn and suffered a stroke one year ago. At the time the patient was visiting with his son, who is a Rabbi in Chicago. The patient made an excellent recovery following high-quality rehabilitation at a Chicago hospital.

He is a survivor of the Holocaust who lives with his wife and is generally independent. Although his walking is slow, he is able to walk utilizing a cane to a nearby synagogue for services every morning. As I was interviewing him last week, he mentioned that most of his day is spent at home with very little to do.

He does not have television, and is not that interested in reading newspapers.

After hearing this, I excused myself to go to my office and bring back an iPad to show him. I placed it in front of him, and logged on to a website sponsored by Yeshiva University (yutorah.org).

I showed him that he would have access to literally thousands of lectures by leading rabbis that he could listen to on demand. His eyes widened and he looked at me with amazement. He asked me if that device needed a computer, and whether it would work in his home. He inquired about the cost.

His wife immediately told me that she wanted one (iPad) for him, and that their daughter would be calling me for the information about setting things up.”

Ninety percent of physicians would like to have time to relate to patients this way. The dysfunctional system has forced physicians to act differently.

This patient recovered from his depression. He is thriving with the use of his innovative device (iPad).

He goes on further to say,

I cannot finish my career in Medicine without finding a way to integrate experienced people with great ideas and insight with young people who know how to create the tools to bring innovative approaches to actuality.

I will describe the future state next. Innovative software can be built in the future state that provides patients with the tools to express their needs and for patients to accept responsibility for their care.

Consumer driven healthcare with the ideal medical savings account will be the foundation of this transformative healthcare system.

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone

The use of economic incentives to motivate behavior is neither a Democratic or Republican idea. It is human nature to be motivated by economic incentives. The concept of individual responsibility is an American idea. It has been tarnished in recent years.

There is no question in my mind that government has the responsibility to be compassionate and help the needy. It is my view that government should help individuals help themselves.

The costs associated with Medicare and traditional healthcare insurance are rising. Every stakeholder points a finger at the other stakeholders as the cause.

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act is raising costs higher in anticipation of cuts in the future. He is in the process of forcing individuals to be more dependent on the government rather than promoting individual responsibility.

Obamacare will fail to control costs.

All anyone has to do is look at a Rand Corp. study of 29 years ago to see what works and what doesn’t work. After all that is said what matters are results in decreasing costs, not your political ideology.

The Rand Corp’s political leanings are more left of center than right of center. The Rand Corp tries not to be biased by these leanings in its scientific studies. Its conclusions from its own data are sometimes skewed to the left ignoring its own evidence.

Patients are responsive to out-of-pocket costs (the more they have to pay, the less health care they buy).

Changes in the amount of spending have no apparent impact on health care outcomes in most cases.

Judging from the difference in behavior between HMO doctors and fee-for-service doctors, physicians are also very responsive to economic incentives.

Consumers with high deductibles were as likely to cut back on useful health services, as they were to cut back on unnecessary care.

The critics of the consumer driven model have used this last point as proof that consumer driven healthcare doesn’t work. They claim that these consumers will not get appropriate care if they have a high deductible and try to save money.

If health care was free, spending soared with no improvement in health status. In the government controlled model government has to limit individual choice of care and access to care in order to keep consumption of care down.

A consumer driven healthcare system would stimulate the growth of full-service diabetes centers that would force physicians into competing for diabetic patients because patients would be managing their own healthcare dollars. CDHC could energize the chronic disease healthcare market. It would create specialized centers competing for the care of patients with chronic diseases. Preventing the complications of chronic disease with education about self-management is in the interest of patients with the disease as well as society. The medical care of the complications of chronic diseases consume 80% of all healthcare dollars. Consumers and physicians respond to economic incentives. The healthcare social contract is really between consumers and physicians not government and hospital systems.

The rules of the free market in healthcare should be in favor of the consumer driven healthcare model . Physicians will listen to patients if the patients control the healthcare dollar. The primary stakeholders (patients) should own their healthcare dollar and their employer should continue to pay for the healthcare benefit. The healthcare insurance industry should not be in control of the healthcare dollar.

The proposed healthcare reforms of both presidential candidates cannot work because the healthcare insurance industry controls the healthcare dollar and therefore the healthcare system.

Neither Presidential candidate has a chance at constructive healthcare reform.

In order for America's economy to grow and prosper, America must promote the growth of a strong working middle class. A nation without a strong middle class having an opportunity to enjoy upward mobility is a nation that is stagnating and on the way to bankruptcy. The middle class has experienced a lack of growth lately because they have been disadvantaged to the benefit of the wealthy. They have been disadvantaged in healthcare, housing, finance, education and other social systems that have been declared broken. Our artificial free market economies have rules that promotes the growth of narrow vested interests and stimulates greed.

The middle class must have the opportunity be educated. It must be provided with incentives to be innovative. It must have affordable healthcare and housing. These incentives must be available for all Americans. Education and health are our most valuable assets. America must develop a cultural atmosphere to encouraged citizens to practice civic and self responsibility. The environment must be free of pollution to protect citizens from disease and illness. The air that we breathe and the food that we eat must not be influenced by the greed of special vested interests.

In recent weeks we have experienced bailout proposals for our financial system. The proposal initially ignored the protection of the middle class. In my view the first draft of the Bush bailout proposal was an insult to America's intelligence. It favored special vested interests and furthered citizen mistrust of the federal government. The terms of the initial bailout were for the protection of Wall Street and not the protection of Main Street. The protection of Wall Street was supposed to trickle down to Main Street. The final agreement will hopefully have protections for Main Street as well as Wall Street with no pork. These dual protections should have been embodied in the initial proposal. We should not reward corporate executives' failure.

I have written to both John McCain and Barack Obama about my thoughts on Repairing the Healthcare System. All I have gotten back is pleas from both campaigns requesting donations. My input has as many other citizens' input been ignored by both campaigns.

The media has characterized the presidential campaign and debates as a boxing match. The media count who outscored who on points. I hear platitudes but no specific proposals on how to protect the middle class.

I hear John McCain say he is going to fight and fight hard for the middle class as he has done for 28 years. The few specific proposals he has presented protect wealthy vested interests.

Barack Obama says he is going to look after the middle class at the expense of the vested interested high wage earners and investors. He does not tell us how he is going to go about it.

John McCain says he is opposed to regulations yet deregulation has gotten us in the position we are in. He reversed himself at twhen it was obvious our economy was about to collapse. A few days earlier he said our economy was basically sound. He did not project the perception of knowledge of economics to America.

It sounds like Barack Obama wants to fix everything with regulations. We have seen historically that regulating everything does not work. A simple example is the failure and perverse effects of price controls. A true market economy works if the correct rules are in place for the benefit of all. I am against government regulations that are oppressive to incentives and innovation.

Our legal system is also broken. It is not easy to enforce the law. Corporations, organizations, and citizens get around the law if they can afford the legal expense at the expense of the middle class. There is little penalty for misrepresentation. Congress is controlled by lobbying groups. Who are the peoples' lobbying groups? The congress should be the lobbying group for the all citizens. Instead, Congress is lobbied and influenced by vested interests.

Government should make and enforce appropriate and fair rules. It should get out of the way and let consumers drive the system. Americans are smart enough to purchase the best products for themselves given the appropriate information.

I have criticized the healthcare insurance industry. John McCain wants to give the control of the institutions of Medicare and Medicaid to the healthcare insurance industry in order to eliminate this entitlement. The healthcare insurance industry does nothing for the middle class and small businesses and everything for its own bottom line. Obscene healthcare insurance executives' salaries and corrupt payoffs occur at the expense of ordinary people.

Once again, it is healthcare insurance contract time for hospital systems and employers paying for healthcare insurance. Again, there have been examples of difficulty between the healthcare insurance industry, hospitals physicians and employers. Once again Unitedhealthcare is using the same tactics they used in the Denver market last year. Neither Congress nor the State Insurance Boards have taken action to protect the middle class.

"St. Luke’s Hospital system in Kansas City and UnitedHealthcare go their separate ways as the price of healthcare insurance goes up and the coverage goes down."

"In July, after a year and a half of trying to come to agreement, the nonprofit St. Luke’s — which encompasses 11 hospitals and several physician practices in the region — said it was done negotiating and would stop accepting United benefits after Feb. 28, 2009"

"St. Luke’s perspective, negotiations had been going on for a year and a half without significant progress. It announced a firm split with United in July so patients and businesses would have ample time to find new coverage if they wanted to stay in St. Luke’s network

"Bonner, who is senior vice president of business development for St. Luke’s, said the increase the hospital asked for would have brought reimbursement rates from United in line with other insurance carriers."

United, which has 504,000 “members” in northwest Missouri and all of Kansas, would continue negotiating if St. Luke’s came back to the table, Tracy said, but he admitted reconciliation is highly unlikely."

"United’s insurance-carrier competitors said they are seeing a windfall. Since St. Luke’s announcement this summer, Humana has been writing about 40 policies a month for companies leaving United, said David Miller, president of Humana in Kansas and Missouri."

The losers are the middle class who would buy insurance if they could afford the premiums. The State Insurance boards must develop and enforce real transparency rules for the healthcare insurance industry. If the rules are not followed the healthcare insurance company should lose its license to sell insurance in the state. The rules must be made and enforced by the insurance board and state hospital boards before negotiation comes to this point. Presently, there is no simple mechanism for adjudications. State boards of insurance and hospital systems' mandates must have effective consumer protection.

Patients are not included in the free market determination of price. They are the victims of a market price controlled by the healthcare insurance industry (secondary stakeholders).

Sound Bytes are deceiving. The Republican Party's Presidential candidate, Republican Party politicians, and Republican policy wonks have often quoted reports that health care costs are expected to ease slightly for employers in 2009. There is deception in this fact. The overall decrease in healthcare costs for businesses is the result of its shifting the burden of costs to their employees. The result is a decrease in cost for the employers nationally. Therefore the sound byte is inaccurate. The cost of healthcare actually will rise 5.7% for the employers. This represents a decrease from last years rise of 6.1%. The direct costs to the consumer increases 29% next year. Once again, the devil is in the details. We can not rely on sound bytes. The healthcare insurance industry triumphs again. The result will be an increase in healthcare insurance industry net profits.

Businesses also say they intend to improve their health and wellness programs so that their employees don’t stay sick as long and — in the best-case situation — don’t become sick in the first place.

"Mercer survey of 1317 employer sponsors. If they make no changes to their healthcare plans the cost would grow nearly 8% on average in 2009.Small employers (those with 10–499 employees) would see an even higher increase, of about 10 percent. However, the majority of respondents say they will take action to lower their actual cost. Well over half (59 percent) of employers taking action to reduce their 2009 cost increase will raise deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance or employee out-of-pocket spending limits. Employee cost-sharing has risen sharply over the past five years: Between 2003 and 2007, the median family deductible for in-network services in a PPO (the type of plan offered by the most employers) rose from $1,000 to $1,500. "

What does all this mean in the present Presidential campaign? Why are healthcare insurance premiums increasing when the provider reimbursement is decreasing? Why is the burden of the cost of healthcare insurance shifting to patients away from the government and the employers? President Bush and a McCain presidency's goal is to shift the burden of healthcare costs to the employee. Is this going to improve the uninsured problem? No! It will make it worse.

Dick Swersy's comment on my blog about the Nobel Prize winning technique to repair the healthcare system is noteworthy. Mechanism Design to Repair the Healthcare is the art and science of designing rules of a game to achieve a specific outcome, even though each participant may be self-interested. This is done by setting up a structure in which each player has an incentive to behave as the designer intends. The game will then implement the desired outcome. The strength of such a result depends on the solution concepts used in the game.

Mechanism designers commonly try to achieve the following basic outcomes: truthfulness, individual rationality, budget balance, and social welfare. However, it is impossible to guarantee optimal results for all four outcomes simultaneously in many situations, particularly in markets where buyers can also be sellers. Significant research in mechanism design must decide on making trade-offs between these qualities and vested interests. The most desirable outcome in the healthcare system should be sustaining patients' welfare and physicians' incentives for innovations in care. These goals will strengthen our healthcare system not weaken it.

Our Presidential candidates are not thinking of these goal as they formulate programs to sustain the goals of the secondary stakeholders. How can you create affordable insurance when coverage decreases, deductibles increase, and the price decreases are defined by increasing the price 5.7% vs. 6.1% a year. It is a charade designed to fool Americans. The charade works because Americans are not paying attention to what is going on. We will complain when it is too late.

The House of Representatives passed a bill called the “Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act” last week that will essential destroy Health Savings Accounts and the quest for consumer independence from the government’s control of the healthcare system. I have criticized HSAs in the past because they only give consumers partial control and not full control of their healthcare dollar. If you do not use the money you lose it. In my opinion this creates a perverse incentive that does not stimulate wellness. It stimulates potential abuse. Patients keep the money they do not spend with my Ideal Medical Savings Account. The MSA would increase incentives for wellness and decrease abuse, because if patients abused the system they losing their own money.

“Democrats have made affordable health care a mainstay of their election agenda, but apparently only if you're willing to get insurance through the government. Witness their stealthy assault on Americans who prefer the private-sector option of Health Savings Accounts.”

No one in the Democratic Party dominated House of Representative nor the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates seem to understand the government can not afford to have a government dominated system. It is also clear they do not trust patients to pursue their vested interest.

<President Bush sent a note to congress stating that he would veto the bill if it contained the anti HSA provision. I do not think the Senate will accept the provision either. The frightening thing is the lack of understanding by the Democratic Party of what is necessary to Repair the Healthcare System.

“A key player here is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark, whose main purpose in politics is to give the U.S. a government-run health-care system. He is a known opponent of HSAs – once comparing them to "weapons of mass destruction" – because they introduce more individual choice into the health-care marketplace.”

“Mr. Stark and his friends want to impose the same bureaucratic overhead even on spending that consumers do with their own money. The Senate should stop this one dead in its tracks.”

Presently the healthcare insurance industry administers these health savings accounts and does not permit misuse to occur. Maybe the only way the Democratic Party can reach its goal of government controlled single party payer healthcare system is to destroy HSAs?

“Pushing for the provision was a company called Evolution Benefits, which has patented a system for the substantiation of health-care expenses. Evolution's lobbyist, John McManus, was the former staff director of the Health Subcommittee under Republican Bill Thomas.”

Unfortunately, this is how the government works. It is influenced by vested interested other than the people it is suppose to represent. Republicans are furious at John McManus, a former Republican congressman’s staff director now a lobbyist.

“Liberals claim HSAs are insurance for the "healthy and wealthy," but there's little evidence this is true. “

There is no evidence that HSAs are only for the healthy and wealthy. It is a potential mechanism for the government to subsidize insurance for the poor and not so poor to promote patient responsibility and stimulate a substantial reduction in cost and increase incentive for citizens to improve healthcare habits. All congress has to do is pass a law saying everyone automatically will be insured using a community rating system and pre tax dollars.

“The high deductable insurance permits the insured to open an HSA and make an annual contribution up to $2,900 for an individual in 2008, which he can use to pay for ordinary health needs. Savings not spent in any given year can build up tax-free for medical expenses. HSAs also give consumers more reason to care about prices, bringing much-needed market discipline.”

A family contribution is over $5,000 in 2008.

“ In any case if people cheat on their HSAs, they are only cheating themselves.”

I wonder how many congresspersons really understand the problems in the healthcare system and what will motivate the people they represent?

The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.